I subscribe to Ed's newsletter and I wholeheartedly agree that his overall assessment of AI's capabilities does not align with mine, as someone who uses it heavily in my job day-to-day. I personally never found that aspect of his thesis to be that compelling to begin with, it's certainly not why I paid for his newsletter.

It's his financial reporting, which asks some really hard, important, and very necessary questions about the largest private investment event in human history, that has given him the reach that he has now. For a lot of folks (particularly investors), the financial side of AI is far more important than the assessment/viability side, and that's fine.

But if this all ends up in financial collapse in a few years (and I, unfortunately, believe that is the most likely outcome based partially on Ed's reporting), then he's not going to be remembered for his inaccuracies on the capability of AI, he'll be remembered for asking the obvious questions years before anyone in mainstream finance media dared to ask.

> "Ed Zitron Was Wrong About AI. [The Argument Keeps Moving.]"

Unless I am missing some poor attempt at satire here, this article is completely 100% AI generated, which is where I stopped reading.